Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 California opinions name it 2 courts 1943–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Campbell-Kawannanakoa v. Campbellgreen2 sentences1953In Larrabee v. Tracy, supra, 21 Cal.2d 645 , the court said (p. 651): “In Campbell-Kawannanakoa v. Campbell, 152 Cal. 201, 210 [ 92 P. 184 ], it was said that a common case of extrinsic fraud is where a party is deprived of his opportunity to be heard ‘by some fraudulent artifice or breach of fiduciary duty on the part of the prevailing party.’ In 3 Freeman on Judgments, supra, section 1235, pages 2575-2576, the author declares that if there is a duty to speak because of a trust or confidential relation, a failure to do so is obviously a fraud for which equity may afford relief whether such fr 1953In Larrabee v. Tracy, supra, 21 Cal.2d 645 , the court said (p. 651): “In Campbell-Kawannanakoa v. Campbell, 152 Cal. 201, 210 [ 92 P. 184 ], it was said that a common case of extrinsic fraud is where a party is deprived of his opportunity to be heard ‘by some fraudulent artifice or breach of fiduciary duty on the part of the prevailing party.’ In 3 Freeman on Judgments, supra, section 1235, pages 2575-2576, the author declares that if there is a duty to speak because of a trust or confidential relation, a failure to do so is obviously a fraud for which equity may afford relief whether such fr | 2 | 2 |
Laun v. Kippgreen2 sentences1951As was said in Jorgensen v. Jorgensen, supra, pages 19 and 20: “The latter policy” (permitting relief) “applies when a party’s adversary, in violation of a duty arising from a trust or confidential relation, has concealed from him facts essential to the protection of his rights, even though such facts concerned issues involved in the case in which the judgment was entered. ‘The failure to perform the duty to speak or make disclosures which rests upon one because of a trust or confidential relation is obviously a fraud, for which equity may relieve from a judgment thereby obtained, even though 1951As was said in Jorgensen v. Jorgensen, supra, pages 19 and 20: “The latter policy” (permitting relief) “applies when a party’s adversary, in violation of a duty arising from a trust or confidential relation, has concealed from him facts essential to the protection of his rights, even though such facts concerned issues involved in the case in which the judgment was entered. ‘The failure to perform the duty to speak or make disclosures which rests upon one because of a trust or confidential relation is obviously a fraud, for which equity may relieve from a judgment thereby obtained, even though | 2 | 2 |
Hudson v. Fostergreen1 sentence2023McLellan v. McLellan, supra, 17 Cal.2d at p. 554 ; see Carr, supra, 11 Cal.2d at p. 374 [holding that an order settling an account “conclusively negatives the charge of mismanagement, negligence or fraud on the part of the … executor”].) Krohe fails to convince us that the extrinsic fraud exception should prevent the application of res judicata to these issues conclusively decided in adjudicating Steinhardt’s petition.4 Extrinsic fraud refers to “fraud in obtaining the order itself.” (Knox v. Dean (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 417, 425 .) “Extrinsic fraud occurs when ‘ “ ‘the unsuccessful party has b | 1 | 1 |
Carr v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'ngreen1 sentence2023McLellan v. McLellan, supra, 17 Cal.2d at p. 554 ; see Carr, supra, 11 Cal.2d at p. 374 [holding that an order settling an account “conclusively negatives the charge of mismanagement, negligence or fraud on the part of the … executor”].) Krohe fails to convince us that the extrinsic fraud exception should prevent the application of res judicata to these issues conclusively decided in adjudicating Steinhardt’s petition.4 Extrinsic fraud refers to “fraud in obtaining the order itself.” (Knox v. Dean (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 417, 425 .) “Extrinsic fraud occurs when ‘ “ ‘the unsuccessful party has b | 1 | 1 |
Lazzarone v. Bank of Americagreen2 sentences2023McLellan v. McLellan, supra, 17 Cal.2d at p. 554 ; see Carr, supra, 11 Cal.2d at p. 374 [holding that an order settling an account “conclusively negatives the charge of mismanagement, negligence or fraud on the part of the … executor”].) Krohe fails to convince us that the extrinsic fraud exception should prevent the application of res judicata to these issues conclusively decided in adjudicating Steinhardt’s petition.4 Extrinsic fraud refers to “fraud in obtaining the order itself.” (Knox v. Dean (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 417, 425 .) “Extrinsic fraud occurs when ‘ “ ‘the unsuccessful party has b 2023McLellan v. McLellan, supra, 17 Cal.2d at p. 554 ; see Carr, supra, 11 Cal.2d at p. 374 [holding that an order settling an account “conclusively negatives the charge of mismanagement, negligence or fraud on the part of the … executor”].) Krohe fails to convince us that the extrinsic fraud exception should prevent the application of res judicata to these issues conclusively decided in adjudicating Steinhardt’s petition.4 Extrinsic fraud refers to “fraud in obtaining the order itself.” (Knox v. Dean (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 417, 425 .) “Extrinsic fraud occurs when ‘ “ ‘the unsuccessful party has b | 1 | 1 |
Knox v. Dean IIgreen1 sentence2023McLellan v. McLellan, supra, 17 Cal.2d at p. 554 ; see Carr, supra, 11 Cal.2d at p. 374 [holding that an order settling an account “conclusively negatives the charge of mismanagement, negligence or fraud on the part of the … executor”].) Krohe fails to convince us that the extrinsic fraud exception should prevent the application of res judicata to these issues conclusively decided in adjudicating Steinhardt’s petition.4 Extrinsic fraud refers to “fraud in obtaining the order itself.” (Knox v. Dean (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 417, 425 .) “Extrinsic fraud occurs when ‘ “ ‘the unsuccessful party has b | 1 | 1 |
Westphal v. Westphalgreen2 sentences1953In Larrabee v. Tracy, supra, 21 Cal.2d 645 , the court said (p. 651): “In Campbell-Kawannanakoa v. Campbell, 152 Cal. 201, 210 [ 92 P. 184 ], it was said that a common case of extrinsic fraud is where a party is deprived of his opportunity to be heard ‘by some fraudulent artifice or breach of fiduciary duty on the part of the prevailing party.’ In 3 Freeman on Judgments, supra, section 1235, pages 2575-2576, the author declares that if there is a duty to speak because of a trust or confidential relation, a failure to do so is obviously a fraud for which equity may afford relief whether such fr 1953In Larrabee v. Tracy, supra, 21 Cal.2d 645 , the court said (p. 651): “In Campbell-Kawannanakoa v. Campbell, 152 Cal. 201, 210 [ 92 P. 184 ], it was said that a common case of extrinsic fraud is where a party is deprived of his opportunity to be heard ‘by some fraudulent artifice or breach of fiduciary duty on the part of the prevailing party.’ In 3 Freeman on Judgments, supra, section 1235, pages 2575-2576, the author declares that if there is a duty to speak because of a trust or confidential relation, a failure to do so is obviously a fraud for which equity may afford relief whether such fr | 1 | 1 |
Morgan v. Ashergreen2 sentences1948Bank, 192 Cal. 651, 655, 657 [ 221 P. 368 ]; Morgan v. Asher, 49 Cal.App. 172, 182 [ 193 P. 288 ]; see Griffith v. Godey, 113 U.S. 89, 93 [ 5 S.Ct. 393 , 28 L.Ed. 934 ]). 1948Bank, 192 Cal. 651, 655, 657 [ 221 P. 368 ]; Morgan v. Asher, 49 Cal.App. 172, 182 [ 193 P. 288 ]; see Griffith v. Godey, 113 U.S. 89, 93 [ 5 S.Ct. 393 , 28 L.Ed. 934 ]). | 1 | 1 |
Griffith v. Godeygreen2 sentences1948Bank, 192 Cal. 651, 655, 657 [ 221 P. 368 ]; Morgan v. Asher, 49 Cal.App. 172, 182 [ 193 P. 288 ]; see Griffith v. Godey, 113 U.S. 89, 93 [ 5 S.Ct. 393 , 28 L.Ed. 934 ]). 1948Bank, 192 Cal. 651, 655, 657 [ 221 P. 368 ]; Morgan v. Asher, 49 Cal.App. 172, 182 [ 193 P. 288 ]; see Griffith v. Godey, 113 U.S. 89, 93 [ 5 S.Ct. 393 , 28 L.Ed. 934 ]). | 1 | 1 |
Clawson v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1948Bank, 192 Cal. 651, 655, 657 [ 221 P. 368 ]; Morgan v. Asher, 49 Cal.App. 172, 182 [ 193 P. 288 ]; see Griffith v. Godey, 113 U.S. 89, 93 [ 5 S.Ct. 393 , 28 L.Ed. 934 ]). | 1 | 1 |
Silva v. Santosgreen2 sentences1948“The failure to perform the duty to speak or make disclosures which rests upon one because of a trust or confidential relation is obviously a fraud, for which equity may relieve from a judgment thereby obtained, even though the breach of duty occurs during a judicial proceeding and involves false testimony, and this is true whether such fraud be regarded as extrinsic or as an exception to the extrinsic fraud rule.” (3 Freeman, Judgments (5th ed.), p. 2576; see, Laun v. Kipp, 155 Wis. 347 [ 145 N.W. 183 , 5 A.L.R. 655 ].) In this state equitable relief has been granted from final judgments sett 1948“The failure to perform the duty to speak or make disclosures which rests upon one because of a trust or confidential relation is obviously a fraud, for which equity may relieve from a judgment thereby obtained, even though the breach of duty occurs during a judicial proceeding and involves false testimony, and this is true whether such fraud be regarded as extrinsic or as an exception to the extrinsic fraud rule.” (3 Freeman, Judgments (5th ed.), p. 2576; see, Laun v. Kipp, 155 Wis. 347 [ 145 N.W. 183 , 5 A.L.R. 655 ].) In this state equitable relief has been granted from final judgments sett | 1 | 1 |
Aldrich v. Bartongreen1 sentence1948“The failure to perform the duty to speak or make disclosures which rests upon one because of a trust or confidential relation is obviously a fraud, for which equity may relieve from a judgment thereby obtained, even though the breach of duty occurs during a judicial proceeding and involves false testimony, and this is true whether such fraud be regarded as extrinsic or as an exception to the extrinsic fraud rule.” (3 Freeman, Judgments (5th ed.), p. 2576; see, Laun v. Kipp, 155 Wis. 347 [ 145 N.W. 183 , 5 A.L.R. 655 ].) In this state equitable relief has been granted from final judgments sett | 1 | 1 |
Simonton v. Los Angeles Trust & Savings Bankgreen2 sentences1948Bank, 192 Cal. 651, 655, 657 [ 221 P. 368 ]; Morgan v. Asher, 49 Cal.App. 172, 182 [ 193 P. 288 ]; see Griffith v. Godey, 113 U.S. 89, 93 [ 5 S.Ct. 393 , 28 L.Ed. 934 ]). 1948Bank, 192 Cal. 651, 655, 657 [ 221 P. 368 ]; Morgan v. Asher, 49 Cal.App. 172, 182 [ 193 P. 288 ]; see Griffith v. Godey, 113 U.S. 89, 93 [ 5 S.Ct. 393 , 28 L.Ed. 934 ]). | 1 | 1 |
Lataillade v. Oreñagreen2 sentences1948“The failure to perform the duty to speak or make disclosures which rests upon one because of a trust or confidential relation is obviously a fraud, for which equity may relieve from a judgment thereby obtained, even though the breach of duty occurs during a judicial proceeding and involves false testimony, and this is true whether such fraud be regarded as extrinsic or as an exception to the extrinsic fraud rule.” (3 Freeman, Judgments (5th ed.), p. 2576; see, Laun v. Kipp, 155 Wis. 347 [ 145 N.W. 183 , 5 A.L.R. 655 ].) In this state equitable relief has been granted from final judgments sett 1948“The failure to perform the duty to speak or make disclosures which rests upon one because of a trust or confidential relation is obviously a fraud, for which equity may relieve from a judgment thereby obtained, even though the breach of duty occurs during a judicial proceeding and involves false testimony, and this is true whether such fraud be regarded as extrinsic or as an exception to the extrinsic fraud rule.” (3 Freeman, Judgments (5th ed.), p. 2576; see, Laun v. Kipp, 155 Wis. 347 [ 145 N.W. 183 , 5 A.L.R. 655 ].) In this state equitable relief has been granted from final judgments sett | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Heyman v. Franchise Mortgage Acceptance Corp.
green
2 sentences2014(See Heymann v. Franchise Mortgage Acceptance Corp. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 921, 926 .) The question is whether the party claiming the relief was “fraudulently prevented from fully participating in the proceeding.” (Id.) This determination is within the discretion of the trial court. 2014(See Heymann v. Franchise Mortgage Acceptance Corp. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 921, 926 .) The question is whether the party claiming the relief was “fraudulently prevented from fully participating in the proceeding.” (Id.) This determination is within the discretion of the trial court. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Kuehn v. Kuehn
green
1 sentence2024Section 2122 permits setting aside a judgment adjudicating support and property division on the ground of “[a]ctual fraud where the defrauded party was kept in ignorance or in some other manner was fraudulently prevented from fully participating in the proceedings.” (§ 2122, subd. (a).) Section 3691 permits setting aside a support order on the ground of actual fraud “[w]here the defrauded party was kept in ignorance or in some other manner, other than through the party’s own lack 10 opportunity to present her claim or defense to the court, or in some manner fraudulently prevented from fully pa | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In Re Marriage of Varner
red
1 sentence2024Section 2122 permits setting aside a judgment adjudicating support and property division on the ground of “[a]ctual fraud where the defrauded party was kept in ignorance or in some other manner was fraudulently prevented from fully participating in the proceedings.” (§ 2122, subd. (a).) Section 3691 permits setting aside a support order on the ground of actual fraud “[w]here the defrauded party was kept in ignorance or in some other manner, other than through the party’s own lack 10 opportunity to present her claim or defense to the court, or in some manner fraudulently prevented from fully pa | 1 | 2024–2024 |
McLellan v. McLellan
green
1 sentence2023McLellan v. McLellan, supra, 17 Cal.2d at p. 554 ; see Carr, supra, 11 Cal.2d at p. 374 [holding that an order settling an account “conclusively negatives the charge of mismanagement, negligence or fraud on the part of the … executor”].) Krohe fails to convince us that the extrinsic fraud exception should prevent the application of res judicata to these issues conclusively decided in adjudicating Steinhardt’s petition.4 Extrinsic fraud refers to “fraud in obtaining the order itself.” (Knox v. Dean (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 417, 425 .) “Extrinsic fraud occurs when ‘ “ ‘the unsuccessful party has b | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Tulsa Professional Collection Services, Inc. v. Pope
green
1 sentence2003DISCUSSION A. The Problem: The Petitioner Is a Judge in His or Her Own Cause This case brings into sharp focus a problem in probate estate administration that did not exist in California prior to Tulsa Collection, supra, 485 U.S. 478 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Rohrbasser v. Lederer
green
2 sentences1987(Id., at p. 724.) In the recent case of Lederer v. Rohrbasser (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 290 [ 224 Cal.Rptr. 791 ], a divided court determined that a prior motion to vacate did not bar a party’s subsequent cross-complaint which raised the same extrinsic fraud claim where there was no “detailed presentation of the issues of fraud or mistake on his motion to vacate” and the party was not given a full opportunity to present oral evidence at the earlier hearing. 1987(Id., at p. 724.) In the recent case of Lederer v. Rohrbasser (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 290 [ 224 Cal.Rptr. 791 ], a divided court determined that a prior motion to vacate did not bar a party’s subsequent cross-complaint which raised the same extrinsic fraud claim where there was no “detailed presentation of the issues of fraud or mistake on his motion to vacate” and the party was not given a full opportunity to present oral evidence at the earlier hearing. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Bacon v. Bacon
green
1 sentence1953But the statement made in Bacon v. Bacon, supra, 150 Cal. 477, 489 ,- concerning the executors there, applies to the executor here: “They were also residuary legatees, and hence whatever was lacking in full payment to the plaintiff was so much gained to them. | 1 | 1953–1953 |
Larrabee v. Tracy
green
1 sentence1953In Larrabee v. Tracy, supra, 21 Cal.2d 645 , the court said (p. 651): “In Campbell-Kawannanakoa v. Campbell, 152 Cal. 201, 210 [ 92 P. 184 ], it was said that a common case of extrinsic fraud is where a party is deprived of his opportunity to be heard ‘by some fraudulent artifice or breach of fiduciary duty on the part of the prevailing party.’ In 3 Freeman on Judgments, supra, section 1235, pages 2575-2576, the author declares that if there is a duty to speak because of a trust or confidential relation, a failure to do so is obviously a fraud for which equity may afford relief whether such fr | 1 | 1953–1953 |
Peckham v. City of Watsonville
green
1 sentence1948“The failure to perform the duty to speak or make disclosures which rests upon one because of a trust or confidential relation is obviously a fraud, for which equity may relieve from a judgment thereby obtained, even though the breach of duty occurs during a judicial proceeding and involves false testimony, and this is true whether such fraud be regarded as extrinsic or as an exception to the extrinsic fraud rule.” (3 Freeman, Judgments (5th ed.), p. 2576; see, Laun v. Kipp, 155 Wis. 347 [ 145 N.W. 183 , 5 A.L.R. 655 ].) In this state equitable relief has been granted from final judgments sett | 1 | 1948–1948 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.